Welcome to the Consumerist Archives

Thanks for visiting Consumerist.com. As of October 2017, Consumerist is no longer producing new content, but feel free to browse through our archives. Here you can find 12 years worth of articles on everything from how to avoid dodgy scams to writing an effective complaint letter. Check out some of our greatest hits below, explore the categories listed on the left-hand side of the page, or head to CR.org for ratings, reviews, and consumer news.

The latest research to be criticized over this apparent conflict of interest comes from the International Journal of Obesity, which recently published a review [PDF] of existing scientific research on the link between “low-energy sweetener consumption” and “energy intake and body weight.”

The study does disclose that it was funded, in part, by the International Life Sciences Institute — Europe, a group whose board of directors features not just a bunch of heavily credentialed academics, but also executives from Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mars, and Unilever. In fact, while there are some 19 people on the ILSI Europe board, three out of five of its officers are representing the food industry.

Additionally, one of the researchers himself is an employee of ILSI Europe, while the study’s lead author previously received research funding from a group called “Sugar Nutrition, UK,” an industry lobbying group formerly known as the British Sugar Bureau. Others on the team have previously been paid for research by the Dutch Sugar Bureau, UK sweetener brand Canderel, or are — as disclosed at the end of the study — “employees and shareholders of companies that manufacture products containing sugars and low-energy sweeteners.”

According to the Times on Sunday [reg. required], the researchers didn’t just get their funding for this study from ILSI Europe, the group also directly paid some of the academics involved around $1,090 each.

Which may not be a concern if the review hadn’t come to such a pro-industry conclusion — that the effect of diet drinks on body weight “appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts.”

As The Independent notes, of the 5,500 studies included in this review, it appears as if the researchers are only using the results of three to reach that conclusion. And of those three, only one — the 2014 paper, funded by the American Beverage Association, mentioned at the start of this story — actually showed any weight loss benefit compared to water.

The University of Bristol, where the study’s lead author teaches, stands by the research, pointing out that it has been peer-reviewed, “which means the data and conclusions have been scrutinised by other scientists.” The school also contends that the study received additional funding from the National Health Service and the European Union.

This news comes on the heels of Coca-Cola’s attempt to start a “political campaign” by providing more than $1 million to the University of Colorado Foundation “for the purposes of funding” a group called the Global Energy Balance Network, which stressed the importance of diet and exercise and downplayed the role of sugary foods in the obesity epidemic.

When Coke’s involvement in the GEBN became known, the beverage biggie claimed it took a hands-off approach to the group. However, subsequently revealed emails showed that Coca-Cola was heavily involved in shaping the group’s message, likening it to “a political campaign, we will develop, deploy and evolve a powerful and multi-faceted strategy to counter radical organizations and their proponents.”